[Rod_Cloutier]

Today I watched the old film 'The day the Earth caught fire' and while watching it I realized that we're actually really living this disaster film because of anthropogenic global warming!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJvdVi4K7rI

The youtube link to the movie above will likely be deleted on copyright grounds within a few days, but it can be found elsewhere and it is apt to our present circumstance, worth watching.

What I found most disturbing in watching this film again was that the government, and 'experts' concealed the problem from the general population using every tactic and trick that they could think of to avoid causing panic. Including outright lying about it! Only keen investigative journalism exposed the cover up.

Keen investigative journalism is largely gone from our culture now, and catastrophic climate change HAS BEEN concealed from the public by the government and 'experts'

In the film, only once the problem was too big to be concealed anymore, AND keen investigative journalism had created public awareness about what happened, that this finally created the public pressure to get something done about the problem. It was an open ended film, (I love those), and we're in the exact predicament now; where only by concerted effort and awareness can we avert disaster- with an open ended question mark on real life.

However, we don't have the journalism, or the journalism professionalism that is presented in this film; we're actually far worse off than the characters in this disaster flick. Propaganda and lies won't help us to overcome. The internet is promising, but it is so fragmented that anyone can say anything and most everything that is said is largely ignored. It doesn't have the 'front page news' impact of the powerful newspapers of yesteryear.

Something has got to give; somehow we need to get better fast at getting the messages out about the 'Earth being on fire' to the public at large to create the push to get things done. We've got to do better somehow?

[FarQ3]

What do we expect, journalism is dominated by women now. They look pretty (and I like that bit) but surveys have shown that the public (particularly men) find them less believeable than their male counterparts. Don't get me wrong there still are some great women journos but gone are the days of hard hitting journos confronting the issues like existed when the profession was male dominated. Most of our journos today appear as only slighlty more intelligent bimbos, would you ever see them on a battlefield? Not likely! More likely they graduated from weather reading or entertainment journalism.

[Buddy_J]

The internet is promising, but it is so fragmented that anyone can say anything and most everything that is said is largely ignored. It doesn't have the 'front page news' impact of the powerful newspapers of yesteryear.

The internet isn't promising as far as journalism goes, for the reasons you described. Everyone is saying everything, so it becomes an a la carte of conspiracy, bad logic, half baked and illogical feelings driven manifestos masquerading as information. Not that the MSM is all that much better mind you, but at least journalists occasionally think they should perfunctory look at both sides before picking their favorite.

So no, if you are relying on journalists or internet blogs to alert the world, forgettaboutit.

Something has got to give; somehow we need to get better fast at getting the messages out about the 'Earth being on fire' to the public at large to create the push to get things done. We've got to do better somehow?

Of course something has to give, and already is.

[SeaGypsy]

Social media has more impact by far in today's world than journalism per-se. The death of journalism is evident and has been since at least the Murdoch consolidations of the 1990's.

IMO Youtube is the most powerful media site globally. Besides bringing K-Pop and Justin Bieber to the world. There are ever more cameras in the world, along with network capable phones. Every day stuff is uploaded showing graphic detail of events which would likely never have been recorded, let alone broadcast before the advent of 'smart phones'. Just about anyone can make a movie and assert their view of the world.

Perhaps the 'death of journalism' is partly a realistic reflection of acknowledgement of the smart phone/ youtube revolution, along with cynicism about the likelihood of career success for the thoroughly authentic and courageous journalist.

Information and disinformation overload are just parts of the new paradigm. There is also a chasm between the 'google generation' and the stubborn old school folks who haven't caught up and have no intention to. The folks who still get their information from the MSM, TV and print media. The folks who never watched stuff like "Collateral Murder" because it wasn't shown on TV and they are not going to watch it on the internet.

A two edged sword in an age of novelty, the internet has changed information exchange as exponentially as the advent of written language.

[ennui2]

"catastrophic climate change HAS BEEN concealed from the public by the government and 'experts'"

The information is out there everywhere. People just don't want to hear it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Earth2100/

[Keith_McClary]

Harper-controlled DFO is censoring federal scientists with research rules, critics say

Angry scientists and academics are accusing the Stephen Harper government of muzzling and censoring its scientists to the point that research cannot be published, even when there is collaboration with international researchers, unless it matches government policy.

Under revised Fisheries and Oceans Canada rules, scientists working in its central and Arctic region cannot be involved in publishing research until a DFO division administrator has reviewed it “for any concerns/impacts to DFO policy.”

That amounts to censoring scientific findings, says Jim Turk, Canadian Association of University Teachers executive director.

“The federal government wants to control what scientists do and what they find and how it’s reported. They want to suppress findings that can be seen as being against their political objectives,” Turk said.

[SeaGypsy]

Similar confidentiality agreements are common across the modern public sector, not just in the USA. Social science is particularly taboo to talk in public about for those working in funded social experiments. A version of 'The Party' decides who has access to jobs and who doesn't, a whiff of 'whistleblower' is lifetime blacklisting.

[Beery1]

What do we expect, journalism is dominated by women now. They look pretty (and I like that bit) but surveys have shown that the public (particularly men) find them less believeable than their male counterparts.

And we have a winner for this week's misogynist of the week contest.

Maybe all journalists should be from Yorkshire, as the Yorkshire accent was recently found to be the most trustworthy (at least in the UK):

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... orkshire_/

The problem with today's news is not that it's dominated by women (it isn't). The problem is that the average bigoted moron couch potato doesn't want news - he wants to be told about medical breakthroughs that will allow him to eat garbage, preferably by someone he wants to masturbate to. Then he wants to hear about a celebrity he wants to masturbate to. Then he wants to be spoonfed his own dumbass opinions, preferably by another person he wants to masturbate to. Those requirements don't leave much room for journalism.

[Keith_McClary]

The Russians have perfected this:

http://www.bravotube.net/videos/hot-rus ... ews-naked/

[Pretorian]

The Russians have perfected this:

http://www.bravotube.net/videos/hot-rus ... ews-naked/

So? Soon enough anchors and other TV-heads will have to do a lot more than this in order to get at least some audience out of other entertainment venues-- internet games, video games, youtube, forums, social media, etc. Personally I cannot imagine why anybody with internet access would waste time watching news on TV, much less paying for subscription.